ML20045B321
| ML20045B321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045B318 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306170188 | |
| Download: ML20045B321 (2) | |
Text
J
)
/g
[*y
?*s
)*'
E UNITED STATES l'
'f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
4..%,, f WASHINGTON, O C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDPENT NO. 174 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY t
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 l.0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 28, 1992, the GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN or the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (TMI-1) Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested change would revise TS Section 3.3.2 to delete an unnecessary requirement to place the unit in a COLD SHUTDOWN condition in the event that an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) train cannot be restored to operability status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> during maintenance. The change would, instead, place the plant in HOT SHUTDOWN within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> when this condition exists.
2.0 EVALUATION Section 3.0.1 of the TMI-l TS requires a plant shutdown, and possibly a plant cooldown, whenever a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) cannot be met unless otherwise specified in the individual TS section that applies to the system or component in question. Specifically, TS 3.0.1 requires placing the plant in the condition in which the specification does not apply.
Section 3.3.1 of the TS specifies conditions that must be met with regard to the ECCS, and the Reactor Building Cooling and Spray Systems in order to make the reactor critical.
Section 3.3.2 of the TS allows maintenance on various portions of these systems but requires plant shutdown and cooldown to COLD SHUTDOWN conditions (i.e., reactor subcritical and reactor coolant temperature less then 200 F) if the system or component cannot be restored to operation within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. TS 3.0.1 would only require taking the plant to HOT SHUTDOWN (i.e., reactor subcritical and reactor coolant temperature greater or equal to 525 F), the first mode in which the reactor is subcritical, in this situation.
Therefore, there is an inconsistency between TS 3.0.1 and TS 3.3.2 that the licensee's submittal proposes to correct.
The revised Standard TS for Babcock & Wilcox plants (NUREG-1430) only requires a plant to be taken down to HOT SHUTDOWN conditions in the event of inoperable ECCS. The Decay Heat Removal System (DHRS) is part of the ECCS at TMI-1 and is also the primary means of cooling when the reactor coolant system 9306170188 930609 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
ppg
--(
.. temperature is less than 200*F.
Requiring near-term entry into a plant condition where a single train (or even both trains) of redundant decay heat removal is inoperable (i.e., the DHRS) would not be the best option from a safety standpoint.
The licensee's proposed amendment in the October 28, 1992, submittal would have required entry into TS 3.0.1 after 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> which would have required the plant to be placed in HOT STANDBY within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and HOT SHUTDOWN within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Since the reactor is presumed to be critical in the HOT STANDBY condition (by definition), this TS would have allowed 6 more hours of critical operation than the Standard TS. At the staff's request, the licensee submitted a supplement to the original request (letter dated May 12, 1993) to make the THI-l TS consistent with the Standard TS in this respect. The letter provided information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The staff has evaluated the licensee's proposed TS changes and considers them acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATIOy in accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no i
i significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (57 FR 58246). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon j
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. Hernan
)
Date:
June 9, 1993